I know this has probably been done before but...

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No recognition - but should have the individual RIGHTS of every other citizen (but not privileges of couples in any way).

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No recognition - but should have the individual RIGHTS of every other citizen (but not privileges of couples in any way).

Is next-of-kin status, according to you, a Right or a Privilege?

A right.

Josh - to answer your question - because you shouldn't be rewarded for your sin, but you also should not be punished, b/c that's not the government's place.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No recognition - but should have the individual RIGHTS of every other citizen (but not privileges of couples in any way).

Is next-of-kin status, according to you, a Right or a Privilege?

A right.

Josh - to answer your question - because you shouldn't be rewarded for your sin, but you also should not be punished, b/c that's not the government's place.

Is it a sin to love someone? Just because you think it is a sin doesn't give you the right to say what we can do.

Should polygamy be legalized as well then?  If a man loves multiple people?  What gives us the right to outlaw that?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Should polygamy be legalized as well then?  If a man loves multiple people?  What gives us the right to outlaw that?

Slippery slope fallacy.

No - I'm asking Josh why polygamy is wrong.  Why do we outlaw polygamy?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Why do we outlaw polygamy?

Because the members of the marriage cannot be treated equally.  Not that this is really a pressing issue anyway, since no one outside of the Utah/Arizona border cares about polygamy.  Why do you bring it up?

How do you know they can't be treated equally.  And what if they don't mind being treated unequally?  Who are you to legislate what's being fair in a marriage?  Point is - if you can legislate polygamy, you can legislate homosexuality.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

How do you know they can't be treated equally.

Historical perspective.

And what if they don't mind being treated unequally?

Well, I don't care whether they live together or anything.

Who are you to legislate what's being fair in a marriage?

I'm not "legislating" anything.  I am arguing in favor of extending recognition of marital couples to those containing two people of the same sex.

Point is - if you can legislate polygamy, you can legislate homosexuality.

Yes, and you can also legislate fornication, ban oral sex, or ban contraception.  But I won't, since that's stupid reasoning, Inks.

Ban oral sex?  Non sequitor fallacy here.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Ban oral sex?  Non sequitor fallacy here.

Well, that went right over your head.

Your argument is that if we can ban polygamy, we should accordingly ban same-sex marriage.  I mentioned oral sex to demonstrate the stupidity of that reasoning.

That's because oral sex has nothing to do with marriage - it's a form of pleasure, and one which I do not consider to be actual sex (defined as a loss of virginity).

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

That's because oral sex has nothing to do with marriage - it's a form of pleasure, and one which I do not consider to be actual sex (defined as a loss of virginity).

You really don't get it.

I am saying that homosexuality has nothing to do with polygamy.  You have not given me any evidence to believe otherwise.

It has to do with legislating who can marry who.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Inks where in the bible does it say that marriage is between a man and a women?

I Corinthians 6:9 says that homosexuality is a sin.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I Corinthians 6:9 says that homosexuality is a sin.

That isn't politically relevant.  Can you justify that homosexuality is immoral or undesirable with your own thinking?

It has to do with legislating who can marry who.

I am still not seeing the connection between polygamy and homosexuality.  What exactly is the similarity?

Because as a Christian, I don't think the government should give benifits for sin.

And polygamy - the similarity is that you think that we sould be able to outlaw marrying multiple people, but not marrying people of hte same sex.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Inks where in the bible does it say that marriage is between a man and a women?

I Corinthians 6:9 says that homosexuality is a sin.

That didn't answer my question, I asked where in the bible does it say that marriage is between a man and a women?

Every other good marriage that we see is heterosexual.  All the homosexuals are punished.  The absence of the opposite proves this, kinda like gravity - sure, there's no way to prove it works 100% of the time, but we've never seen it do anything else.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Every other good marriage that we see is heterosexual.  All the homosexuals are punished.  The absence of the opposite proves this, kinda like gravity - sure, there's no way to prove it works 100% of the time, but we've never seen it do anything else.

You have yet to convince me why we should use the Bible as the standard from which to base our marriage laws.

Because we were founded on Biblical (not Christian, but Biblical) principles.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Inks where in the bible does it say that marriage is between a man and a women?

I Corinthians 6:9 says that homosexuality is a sin.

That didn't answer my question, I asked where in the bible does it say that marriage is between a man and a women?

Every other good marriage that we see is heterosexual.  All the homosexuals are punished.  The absence of the opposite proves this, kinda like gravity - sure, there's no way to prove it works 100% of the time, but we've never seen it do anything else.

What?

All homosexual marriages/relationships in the Bible were punished.  All of the blessed marriages were between men and women.  So the absence of saying marriage can be between men and men or women and women would imply that it must be heterosexual.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Inks where in the bible does it say that marriage is between a man and a women?

I Corinthians 6:9 says that homosexuality is a sin.

That didn't answer my question, I asked where in the bible does it say that marriage is between a man and a women?

Every other good marriage that we see is heterosexual.  All the homosexuals are punished.  The absence of the opposite proves this, kinda like gravity - sure, there's no way to prove it works 100% of the time, but we've never seen it do anything else.

What?

All homosexual marriages/relationships in the Bible were punished.  All of the blessed marriages were between men and women.  So the absence of saying marriage can be between men and men or women and women would imply that it must be heterosexual.

Their was no homosexuals in the bible.

Genesis 19:4-5 in Sodom and Gomorrah

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Because we were founded on Biblical (not Christian, but Biblical) principles.

Nope.  Do you have any secular reasons to prohibit two people who love each other from getting married?

I don't care if 2 people get married (the ceremony) - but they don't deserve legal recognition or benefits.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

One of the general problems with polygamy is that, in practice, it is seldom a "victimless crime."

But what if the woman really loves him - who are you to legislate that?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

One of the general problems with polygamy is that, in practice, it is seldom a "victimless crime."

But what if the woman really loves him - who are you to legislate that?

Polygamous relations are not equal inks. Think about it. There will always be one gender over-represented with the other under-represented. They may love eachother, but the government shouldn't support polygamous relations by giving them the right to marry. Polygamous families more often than not lead to the destruction of the family and family values. We cant have the government supporting it.  That's not what marriage is about. However, gay marriages are different. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that they lead to the breakdown of the family, and therefore I see no reason for the government to not endorse it. Please keep the Bible out of this, as not everyone believes in the message of the Bible, and US law is not based upon it.

What are family values?  I always considered them to be: 1 Husband + 1 Wife + Kids

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

One of the general problems with polygamy is that, in practice, it is seldom a "victimless crime."

But what if the woman really loves him - who are you to legislate that?

Polygamous relations are not equal inks. Think about it. There will always be one gender over-represented with the other under-represented. They may love eachother, but the government shouldn't support polygamous relations by giving them the right to marry. Polygamous families more often than not lead to the destruction of the family and family values. We cant have the government supporting it.  That's not what marriage is about. However, gay marriages are different. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that they lead to the breakdown of the family, and therefore I see no reason for the government to not endorse it. Please keep the Bible out of this, as not everyone believes in the message of the Bible, and US law is not based upon it.

What are family values?  I always considered them to be: 1 Husband + 1 Wife + Kids

Nope. Family values are more abstract than that. The best family unit is the one that produces the model citizens of the future. I see this in a heterosexual marriage, and I see this in homosexual marriage as well. I do not see this in a polygamous marriage.

And I believe it was George Romney's parents who were polygamists - and he turned out successful and a model citizen - a Governor (even if you disagree with his politics) - correct me if I'm wrong - but I'm pretty sure that it was George's parents who were polygamists.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

One of the general problems with polygamy is that, in practice, it is seldom a "victimless crime."

But what if the woman really loves him - who are you to legislate that?

Polygamous relations are not equal inks. Think about it. There will always be one gender over-represented with the other under-represented. They may love eachother, but the government shouldn't support polygamous relations by giving them the right to marry. Polygamous families more often than not lead to the destruction of the family and family values. We cant have the government supporting it.  That's not what marriage is about. However, gay marriages are different. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that they lead to the breakdown of the family, and therefore I see no reason for the government to not endorse it. Please keep the Bible out of this, as not everyone believes in the message of the Bible, and US law is not based upon it.

What are family values?  I always considered them to be: 1 Husband + 1 Wife + Kids

Nope. Family values are more abstract than that. The best family unit is the one that produces the model citizens of the future. I see this in a heterosexual marriage, and I see this in homosexual marriage as well. I do not see this in a polygamous marriage.

And I believe it was George Romney's parents who were polygamists - and he turned out successful and a model citizen - a Governor (even if you disagree with his politics) - correct me if I'm wrong - but I'm pretty sure that it was George's parents who were polygamists.

Well, I don't know much about George Romeny, but I never said there weren't examples of people who were succesful despite coming from polygamist marriages.

Where are your statistics that say that people who come out of those situations have troubled lives (at least more than normal)?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If a gay person gets hospitalized and their partner wants to see them the situation is identical to if they were a straight couple. The gay person's partner shouldn't be treated as a stranger when they aren't.

Agreed - this is an issue of RIGHTS - and all people should have the right to be able to visit in a hospital if the person wants them to - this is not a privilege, but a right, and here is an example where the system DOES need to be changed.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If a gay person gets hospitalized and their partner wants to see them the situation is identical to if they were a straight couple. The gay person's partner shouldn't be treated as a stranger when they aren't.

Agreed - this is an issue of RIGHTS - and all people should have the right to be able to visit in a hospital if the person wants them to - this is not a privilege, but a right, and here is an example where the system DOES need to be changed.

But what if the person is not awake(maybe in a coma). What benefit is it not appropriate to give for gay partnerships anyways?

All benefits are not appropriate.  If the person isn't awake, then they must have previously stated that they would allow the person to visit - not hard.